Tuesday, June 23, 2015

This is an incomplete response to an essay posted to ssrn by Professor Kevin Lee.The key phrase “Culture of Death”
in the title of Professor Lee’s essay was popularized by Pope John Paul II in
his important 1995 encyclical, EvangeliumVitae (“The Gospel of Life”). The encyclical is divided into four
chapters. Sections 7-28 comprise the
first chapter, “The Voice of Your
Brother’s Blood Cries to Me from the Ground.”
After a review of the Biblical account of the first murder of Abel by
Cain in sections 7-10, John Paul catalogues in section ten several contemporary
attacks on life on which attacks his encyclical expressly does not
concentrate: threats from nature
exacerbated by human indifference; results of violence, hatred, and conflicting
interests; poverty, malnutrition, and hunger because of unjust distribution of
resources; armed conflict; reckless tampering with ecological balance; criminal
spread of drugs; and promotion of sexual activities involving grave risks to
life. On none of these does John Paul
concentrate. Rather, beginning in section eleven, John Paul focuses his attention
on a particular form of attack on life:
attacks affecting life at its most vulnerable, earliest and final
stages. John Paul writes of abortion and
euthanasia. These attacks on life are
all the more serious because they “are carried out in the very heart of and
with the complicity of the family—the family which by its nature is called to
be the ‘sanctuary of life.’” John Paul
then turns his attention to the causes of this situation including moral
uncertainty fostered by many and serious social problems, which leads to
section twelve of the encyclical, the section in which John Paul introduces the
phrase “culture of death,” providing Professor Lee with a catchy title for his
essay.In section twelve, John Paul
identifies a structure of sin that spawns the emergence of a “culture of
death.” The problem is a “society
excessively concerned with efficiency.”
This “culture of death” amounts to a “war of the powerful against the
weak.” The lives of the very young and
the very old, lives that “require greater acceptance, love and care” are “held
to be an intolerable burden.” The
“culture of death” is a culture that values life only so long as it can
“contribute to the bottom line.” If a
particular life demands more of human society than it can give back, then that
life has no net value and must be eliminated.
This is the “culture of death” of which John Paul wrote. The phrase “culture of death”
appears eleven more times in Evangelium
Vitae, most of those recurring in the first chapter. The phrase appears for the second time in section
nineteen, which addresses the roots of a “remarkable contradiction” between
contemporary global proclamations of human rights and the practice that the “very
right to life is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more
significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death.” John Paul identifies one of those roots as “a
completely individualistic concept of freedom, which ends up by becoming the
freedom of ‘the strong’ against the weak who have no choice but to submit.” This concept of freedom supports a “culture
of death”: “the taking of life not yet
born or in its final stages.” Section
twenty-one seeks “the deepest roots” of “the culture of death” and finds “a
social and cultural climate dominated by secularism” that “produces a kind of
progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God’s living and saving
presence.” John Paul argues in section
twenty-four that this darkening of the moral conscience of a society that
“encourages the ‘culture of death’ is exacerbated by the media that confuses
“between good and evil, precisely in relation to the fundamental right to
life.”In section twenty-six, John Paul
notes “signs which point to” the ultimate victory of life over death. These signs appear even in societies that are
“marked” by the “culture of death.” The
phrase “culture of death” appears twice in section twenty-eight, the final
section of the first chapter, in which John Paul sums up the “clash” between
the “’culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life’” and emphasizes our duty to
choose between the “’culture of life’ and the ‘culture of death.’”The phrase “culture of death”
appears once at the end of chapter two, “I Came That They May Have Life,” which
reflects “on the Christian message about life.”
In section fifty, John Paul analogizes the “dramatic conflict between
the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life’” to the “cosmic disturbances”
experienced at the Cross on Good Friday.
The phrase “culture of death” appears once in chapter three, “You Shall
Not Kill — God’s Holy Law.” In section
sixty-four, John Paul focuses on end of life issues. John Paul identifies “one of the more
alarming symptoms of the ‘culture of death,’" which is “an attitude of
excessive preoccupation with efficiency . . . which sees the growing number of
elderly and disabled people as intolerable and too burdensome.”The three final uses of the phrase
“culture of death” are in the final chapter four, ““You Did It to Me — for a
New Culture of Human Life.” In section
eighty-seven John Paul stresses the need for the “service of charity” as “the
‘culture of death’ so forcefully opposes the ‘culture of life.’" In section ninety-five, John Paul again stresses
the “dramatic struggle between the ‘culture of life’ and the ‘culture of
death,’” which presses the “need to develop a deep critical sense, capable of
discerning true values and authentic needs.”
The final use of the phrase appears in section 100 in which John Paul
acknowledges that “[t]here is certainly an enormous disparity between the
powerful resources available to the forces promoting the ‘culture of death’ and
the means at the disposal of those working for a ‘culture of life and love.’"Thus, the “culture of death”
discussed by John Paul in Evangelium
Vitae relates entirely to abortion and euthanasia. What does all of this have to do with
firearms? Perhaps nothing – firearms are
used neither to abort babies nor to euthanize the elderly or infirm, at least not commonly. This is not to say that John Paul was not concerned about gun violence, it is rather to say that he did not express that concern in
his “culture of death” discussion in Evangelium
Vitae.Professor Lee looks at three
aspects of firearms. The first is their
intrinsic nature. Professor Lee offers
the opinion that the “firearm is, in its essence, a weapon. It is intrinsically violent since it is
brought into existence . . . to bring about the potential of a violent act.” It certainly is the case that firearms make especially effective weapons of violence, but that is a particular use, not
necessarily inherent to their essence.
Firearms are inherently high-velocity projectiles. Many, but not all, high velocity projectile machines are very useful as destructive weapons. For example, very low caliber firearms are
not very effective as destructive weapons.
Of course, people probably have always used projectiles as weapons. Likewise, people probably have always used
projectiles for sport. There is a fine
line between throwing a rock as a weapon and throwing a baseball for
sport. The same physics that permit a
catapult to be used as a weapon permit the lacrosse player to use a stick for
sport. Likewise, firearms can be used in
war and can be used for target shooting.
“Destructive force” is not inherent to the firearm. It is incidental. The power that permits high velocity and
accuracy at great distance also makes many firearms dangerously destructive,
but not inherently so. Of course, a
particular firearm can be designed, more or less, for destruction, which
actually makes the point that destruction is not inherent to the firearm.Professor
Lee reports that the firing of a firearm is pleasurable precisely because of
its potential for destructive impact. I
certainly am in no position to deny Professor Lee’s personal experience. I can only describe my own. I would compare my pleasure at striking a
target at distance with a firearm to the pleasure of “shooting” (pun intended)
a basketball through a hoop at distance.
In both cases, the level of the pleasure is directly proportional to the
distance. Of course, the firearm
provides the unique opportunity of hitting very, very small targets at very
great distances. I cannot think of
anything that compares to this.
Professor Lee relates the “widely reported sensation” of “a
satisfying feeling of the power one gains over the weapon and the target.” Professor Lee expressly declines to cite much in his essay, but I would find at least one citation in support of this widely reported sensation to be helpful to my understanding. He says that this feeling is intrinsic to the
firearm. This is the firearm “fulfilling
its purpose.” As I have suggested, this experience of the inherent purpose of the firearm is not universal.Finally, it may be beneficial to consider
this subject based on a balanced view of the facts. Professor Lee’s essay indicates that gun
slayings in the United States are growing. But gun slayings in the United States
actually are on the decline. Most
homicides in the United States are committed with handguns. Such homicides are at historically low levels.